R.Saravanan v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN R.Saravanan S/o. M.Ravi, No. 37 and 38 , Attur bus Stand, Attur, Salem district ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Building, MRC Nagar, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 28.
2. The District Collector Salem district, Salem.
3. The Commissioner Attur Municipality, Attur
4. A.Loganathan S/o. Athineri, No. 9/37 Pillaiyar koil street, Ranipet, Attur town, Salem district
5. A.Fathima W/o. Ajmal Sheriff, No. 19/7 Siva Guru Street, Attur Town, Salem district ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the 1st and 3rd respondents to conduct public auction for Shop Nos. 37 and 38 situated at Attur Bus Stand, Attur, Salem District and not to disturb with the petitioners peaceful possession and occupation of the shop Nos. 37 and 38 till the completion of the public auction by considering the petitioners representation dated 03.01.2026.
For Petitioner(s):
R.Jayaprakash For Respondent(s):
Dr.T.Seenivasan Spl.Gp For R1 And R3 Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader For R2 Mr.M.P.Rajavelayutham for R4 Mr.S.Duraisamy for Mr.V.Elangovan, For R5
ORDER
After I heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3, Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for 2nd respondent, Mr.Rajavelayudham, learned counsel for 4th respondent and Mr.S.Duraisamy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, I informed Mr.R.Jayaprakash that shop nos.37 and 38 have been allotted to the 5th respondent and hence, he cannot claim any right to continue in possession of the property. Mr.Jayaprakash claimed that the original lessee was the 4th respondent viz., .Mr.A.Loganathan and it was from him, that he had taken possession of shop nos. 37 and 38.
2. Mr.S.Duraisamy pointed out that Mr.Loganathan had approached the 5th respondent to take over the shop nos.37 and 38. The 5th respondent agreed to the same. Accepting the proposal of Mr.Loganathan and Ms.Fathima, the 3rd respondent had transferred the lease in favour of Ms.Fathima. Therefore, shop nos.37 and 38 are to be rightfully enjoyed by the 5th respondent alone and not by the writ petitioner, who is an unauthorised occupant, at best.
3. Mr.Jayaprakash pleaded that the petitioner has been doing business in the said area for several years and hence, he sought time to vacate and hand over possession. He stated that the petitioner will file an affidavit of undertaking.
4. When I called the matter today, Mr.M.Venkatesh representing Mr.R.Jayaprakash filed an undertaking affidavit. The same is scanned and extracted hereunder:
5. In the light of the affidavit:- (i) This writ petition stands dismissed;
(ii) The petitioner is granted time till hold to be in occupation of shop nos.37 and 38 of Attur Bus Stand, Attur Town, Salem District. He shall handover the keys of the said shops to the 3rd respondent, on or before, the aforesaid date.
(iii)Once the 3rd respondent receives the keys, he shall handover the same to the 5th respondent.
(iv)The writ petitioner shall pay the rent for the period expiring on 31.07.2026, in advance, by 10.04.2026.
(iii)In default of compliance the aforesaid clause, the petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of the extended time granted under this order. To make it abundantly clear, if the rental amounts for the period ending 31.07.2026, are not paid by 10.04.2026, the 3rd respondent is entitled to lock and seal the premises.
05-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK To
1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Building, MRC Nagar, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 28.
2. The district Collector Salem district, Salem
3. The Commissioner Attur Municipality, Attur.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
sk 05-02-2026